Classical philosophy and Darwinian biology are far more compatible than is usually assumed. In fact, looking at either from the standpoint of the other can enrich and deepen our appreciation of both. From a Darwinian point of view, the theories of Plato and Aristotle deserve to be taken very seriously. From the classical point of view, Darwinian biology is much less reductionist than its enemies suppose.

Monday, May 6, 2013

Relative Virtue & Unqualified Virtue

Any philosophical account of
ethics will try to discover something that is universally descriptive of moral
beliefs and behaviors.Some accounts are
limited to description and these we may call relativistic accounts.What is right and wrong are so only relative
to some observer (moral subjectivism) or to some group of observers (cultural
relativism).Both forms of relativism
deny that there are moral standards that are true, independently of the
observer.

The varieties of moral
objectivism look for precisely such a standard.The four serious contenders are follows:

1.Divine Command Theory holds that the standard is
the authority of a divine or otherwise transcendent lawgiver.

2.Utilitarianism holds that the standard is the
beneficial consequences of the moral action.

3.Deontology holds the standard is the good will:
moral actions are those and only those done because they are the right thing to
do.

4.Virtue ethics, as I have argued in these posts,
finds the standard in the reciprocal relationship between the virtuous action
and the virtuous character.

All of these approaches have
strengths and weaknesses and, I believe, each captures some genuine features of
moral behavior and consciousness as it actually presents itself in human
life.Most of my students in Philosophy
100 tend to switch between the first three depending on the situation.

I hold with number 4 because I
believe that it provides both the best descriptive account of morality as a
universal dimension of the human being and because I believe that it provides
the best counsel for someone wanting to know what to do.I would add to this that it incorporates the
insights of the other accounts, including even some of those that come from
cultural relativism.I will focus here
on the latter.

Cultural relativists recognize
that different groups frequently have different sets of moral rules.The relativist argues that these rules are
ultimately arbitrary and thus to be right or wrong is nothing other than to be
in sync or out of sync with some particular cultural set.Relativists tend to emphasize the
disagreements between distinct moral cultures and prefer to ignore or deny that
there are any universal rules.All moral
cultures are the product of a distinct history and thus owe their character
largely to accident.

Interestingly, Aristotle (the authority in virtue ethics) recognized
what one might call relative virtue in his Politics.To be a virtuous citizen in an aristocracy is
not the same thing as to be virtuous citizen in a democracy.The one must support and the other must oppose
an inegalitarian distribution of political honors and offices.On the other hand, Aristotle thinks that the
virtuous man is the same in all regimes.

It is true that the vast
majority of human beings acquire their moral beliefs from the culture they are
raised in and that moral codes differ at least in the values and rules that
they prioritize.Cultural relativism
allows these facts to obscure the universal ground of morality.From Chapter 2 of Moral
Origins, by Christopher Boehm:

The rules that individuals internalize are the cultural
product of groups that gossip moralistically on an ongoing basis.That’s how moral codes originate, stay in
place, and are continuously refined.

The facts that Boehm points out
here are not relative but universal.Virtually all human beings are born and raised and live in moral
communities and internalize the moral rules of the groups.This is to say that those rules become part
of their psychological equipment and form the original ground of their moral
intuitions.

However, just as the multitude
of human languages all testify to a human capacity for speech, so the various
moral cultures testify to our universal capacity for morality.A particular rule internalized by some
culture may be specific to that culture (e.g., not eating shell fish).Internalizing moral rules, enforcing them by
shaming, shunning, expulsion, or some more violent sanction, are not specific
to any culture.They are human things.

When something like moral
consciousness and collective enforcement are universal, there are two likely
explanations.One is that they are
natural.These have been selected for in
our evolutionary history.The other is
that they are artificial but address universal human needs.Which is it?Both, I am sure.Our tendency to
form moral cultures is too deeply engrained in us to be a recent product of
history.However, it is flexible enough
that we can modify it by intention.

While cultural relativism
blinds one to the universal foundation of morality, it also overemphasizes the
difference between moral cultures.Again
from Boehm:

Today human groups come in the form of nations or cities, as
well as tribes and nomadic bands, but they all have such moral codes.And even though certain types of moral belief
can vary considerably (and sometimes dramatically) between cultures, all human
groups frown on, make pronouncements against, and punish the following: murder,
undue use of authority, cheating that harms group cooperation, major lying, theft,
and socially disruptive sexual behavior.These basic rules of conduct appear to be human universals.

Again, these universal rules
must be either the products of natural inclinations or they emerge historically
because they meet natural needs.Again,
it is probably both; though I suspect that the flexibility we in definitions of
murder or decisions about which uses of authority are undue puts the weight on
the latter.

Virtue ethics is grounded in a
realistic appraisal of moral development.We learn to be good, in so far as we can, by internalizing the moral
rules of our native culture and imitating those who are identified as virtuous
by that culture.We learn that some
people are better than others and if we strive to be like the best we will make
moral progress in that context.

As moral cultures differ, the
best person in one may well be different in character from the best person in
another.However, if Boehm is right, the
two may not be all that different.Boehm
relates the story of collective hunting among the Mbuti pygmies.The hunting system was a genuine prisoner’s
dilemma.If everyone cooperates, all
will get some meat.One hunter cheated
and was punished with ridicule by his tribe.I seriously doubt that there is any human culture that would not
recognize this tale and condemn the cheater.

At some point one may recognize
that some cultures are better than others and at that point adopt a critical
view of her own culture.This may result
from an exposure to other cultures.When
I compare our ways to theirs, I might conclude that in some ways theirs is
better.Such a comparison is possible,
however, only if there are some standards that are independent of cultural differences.If human intelligence can discover such
standards in the natural function and meaning of morality, then virtue ethics
represents the mature stage in moral thought.

4 comments:

brev: I am pretty sure that group selection plays a role in human evolution. I am currently reading Moral Origins, by Christopher Boehm. Boehm seems to think so as well. The problem with group selection is that, while groups with a lot of altruists may out compete groups with few altruists, the altruists within the group would put themselves out of business by their acts of self-sacrifice. One possible solution to that problem would be for the altruists to expel the free riders. I think that that is where Boehm is going with his argument.

This is an interesting idea - but I'm not convinced that the fact that something seems to be a relatively universal concept means that it is naturally right. The ideas that slaves rightfully belonged to their masters was prevalent throughout history and in civilizations all around the globe. From the Babylonians and the Hebrews in ancient times to the Russians and Americans in more recent history, the ideas that masters were more moral than slaves and that slaves owed their masters obedience prevailed. One could argue, I suppose, that the fact that these ideas were long lasting and fairly universal, they were naturally right - but I think that view would be wrong.